The dreaded double turn

[Forrix]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The double turn exasperates bad luck.  In a game without double turn you can have bad luck.  But having bad luck two turns in a row without being able to respond is not a good player experience.  Its one of the only things I really do not like about this game.

There seems to be glass half full/half empty aspect to this. There's a guy in my gamer group who loves the double turn because it can allow him to make comebacks if he's down in a game. Where as for me I'm usually like, well I could have made a come back but then my opponent got the double turn and it all went to hell.

[Dreadmund]

1 minute ago, Forrix said:

well I could have made a come back but then my opponent got the double turn and it all went to hell.

This is how I felt at a bunch of my recent games. It was pretty balanced, then they got a double turn and it was all over for me. This is why I like the mechanic of the second player being able to control endless spells as something of a gentle balancing mechanic. But if one of those spells isn't on the board, and it frequently isn't because of the danger of having it turned on you, being on the receiving end of a double turn can often be devastating.

Regarding shooty/magic heavy armies - your army will also suffer massively for being double turned since so much of your army is tied up in types of damage that you can't use on the enemy's turn. So there is a high risk/reward to playing those types of armies. I wouldn't have realized that without reading this thread so thanks for the insight all! It's put some of my recent games into a new perspective.

[The World Tree]

6 hours ago, Dreadmund said:

 This is how I felt at a bunch of my recent games. It was pretty balanced, then they got a double turn and it was all over for me. This is why I like the mechanic of the second player being able to control endless spells as something of a gentle balancing mechanic. But if one of those spells isn't on the board, and it frequently isn't because of the danger of having it turned on you, being on the receiving end of a double turn can often be devastating.

 Regarding shooty/magic heavy armies - your army will also suffer massively for being double turned since so much of your army is tied up in types of damage that you can't use on the enemy's turn. So there is a high risk/reward to playing those types of armies. I wouldn't have realized that without reading this thread so thanks for the insight all! It's put some of my recent games into a new perspective.

Perhaps you are making poor tactical decisions? The double turn is a known possibility that you should factor into your actions. Sometimes I play for the double turn, leaving myself vulnerable to fate. I find it really builds tension into the game and keeps things exciting.

There are of course some situations where nothing can be done (Eels being faster than lightning).

[Dead Scribe]

Out of curiousity are there any other games that exist where something like a double turn happen so that I can examine those cases?

[King Taloren]

Well there is Underworlds from Games Workshop as well. But it isn’t really true double turn.

Most other games are almost all alternating turns.

Closest Miniature game is Malifaux with the draw and highest card goes first but even then it is alternate activation between players.closest you can get is having the last activation and then the first.

There really isn’t any other popular games that run a ruleset like this at all.

It’s a little odd that this is sort of the one rule that is not in anything else even other Games Workshop games.

Edited March 29, 2019 by King Taloren

[Tidings]

My issue with the double turn is that it's way too much impact on the game based on a dice roll. The strategical depth it adds to the game is fairly minor. Sure you can plan and prepare for it, but generally you have high-priority goals each turn (kill this unit, get that objective, etc) and that means there are already strategical moves that are more optimal. The choices you make in most turns are the same, whether you are bracing to be double-turned or not. 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the small added depth and decision making. What I don't enjoy is the massive swing a game takes based on the roll-off. If I win a double turn, I can almost always do enough damage that coming back from it is mathematically unlikely for my opponent. That's not super fun or rewarding. Instead of winning because of superior strategy, I won because I rolled a 5 and he rolled a 3. 

I have yet to see a game where someone getting a double turn did NOT have a massive impact on the outcome of a game. And very often getting hit by a double turn means you are stuck fighting an uphill battle, because even if you get one a turn later, you're already set back too far. 

Finally, the mechanic makes going second WAY better than going first in almost every scenario. OP already outlined why. 

[Kramer]

17 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The double turn exasperates bad luck.  In a game without double turn you can have bad luck.  But having bad luck two turns in a row without being able to respond is not a good player experience.  Its one of the only things I really do not like about this game.

But by that logic it also cancels out bad luck, right? For every time you have bad luck followed by bad luck, you also have a game where you turn of bad luck is followed by a turn of good luck? 

I personally like the double turn. I off course also dislike the games where you get two bad rounds back to back against you... but I happily accept those because of the games where one player get ahead but a double turn round three to four blows the game wide open again. 

Those  come backs make the game exciting to me and the double turn can also enable the under dog to get back in it. 

[Luke82]

I don’t think I’ve played a single game where the double turn had a positive impact to enjoyment, but plenty where it killed the game by pushing one side too far ahead making it a foregone conclusion early on. 

It’s no fun to get double turned, or to double turn someone either. I rarely play it in casual and narrative games, and wish they’d get rid of it when AoS 3 comes round.

[Ruhraffe]

I'd like an alternating activation pattern:

At the beginning of the battleround: 1 initiative roll to see who starts first in every phase of the round.

Hero phase: alternated casting/abilities, 1 spell/ability per activation

Movement phase: 1 unit move/run per activation

Shooting Phase: Alternated shooting, 1 unit per activation

combat: alternate charging, then alternated fighting

End of battleround


This would deal with the double turn problem, because you get to act with one unit instead of your whole army in the optimal case. And it deals with the hero, movement and shooting phase being boring for the opponent, because all he does in these phases is dispells, save rolls and removing his models and has time to make some tea in between.

[Dead Scribe]

5 hours ago, Kramer said:

But by that logic it also cancels out bad luck, right? For every time you have bad luck followed by bad luck, you also have a game where you turn of bad luck is followed by a turn of good luck? 

I personally like the double turn. I off course also dislike the games where you get two bad rounds back to back against you... but I happily accept those because of the games where one player get ahead but a double turn round three to four blows the game wide open again. 

Those  come backs make the game exciting to me and the double turn can also enable the under dog to get back in it. 

I dislike the double turn simply because its impact whether positive or negative is too heavy and I don't like that a single die roll can have such impact.  It removes, to me, a level of strategy and tactics by having a single die roll have that much weight.

[Kramer]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

I dislike the double turn simply because its impact whether positive or negative is too heavy and I don't like that a single die roll can have such impact.  It removes, to me, a level of strategy and tactics by having a single die roll have that much weight.

Yeah fair enough. 

[InSaint]

I have a suspicion for quite a while that AOS initiative system turns off a lot of WAAC 40k players who dislikes to dwell in uncertainty and obsessively manage risks in game. 🤣 

By the way, some battleplans actually favor going first in turn 1. Like those capturing with a leader and can only be taken away by having another leader slay the leader at the objective.

While I do agree it can be very brutal for new players, GW has came up with a brilliant plan to bait new players into Warcry first.  Before these players realise the dangers of plastic addiction, they are just a start collecting set away from a full fledge AOS army... ROFL 

Not too sure about Warcry but it might have a similar initiative system which may help improve the experience for new players? 

[Dead Scribe]

I don't know that its fair to say those that don't like double turn are simply WAAC players that don't like uncertainty and can't manage risks in game. 

Double turn takes agency away from a player two turns in a row.  Its no fun for people, WAAC, CAAC, or otherwise, to stand around for two whole turns doing nothing but taking models off.

[VBS]

On 3/29/2019 at 1:50 AM, Dead Scribe said:

Out of curiousity are there any other games that exist where something like a double turn happen so that I can examine those cases?

Not really the same, but in Blood Bowl a single dice roll can force you to stop your turn. This can be mitigated by doing low risk actions first and such, but on some occasions (example: a massive melee in the middle forcing many rolls) can end up being almost as if your opponent plays twice in a row, if in a bad position. Consequence tends to be that you get smashed to pieces if against a heavy hitter or your opponent probably gets guaranteed touch down if moving fast and smart.

But Blood Bowl is a game of frustration management, so it is not much of a problem. Usually gets solved by drinking beer and having a good laugh.  

 

I like @Ruhraffe's suggestion. Similar to the Lord Of The Rings system. I think it is a good way to promote dynamic gameplay, keeping things interesting.

[Overread]

36 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't know that its fair to say those that don't like double turn are simply WAAC players that don't like uncertainty and can't manage risks in game. 

Double turn takes agency away from a player two turns in a row.  Its no fun for people, WAAC, CAAC, or otherwise, to stand around for two whole turns doing nothing but taking models off.

And its even worse in Warhammer because its alternate army turns not alternate unit turns. So its not just your opponent going first, they get an entire two turns to move shoot and assault however they want. That's immensely powerful, esp if it happens anywhere in the earlier game when the game state is still up for grabs. 

Certainly a losing player might get to make a comeback, but the double turn isn't based on game state, its based on the luck of the dice. So it can just as easily turn a winning opponent into an all out win; or take an even gate state and tip it in the favour of one player. Essentially its got to be late game and already losing for a double turn to basically not hand a player most of the game. 

To me its a bad design element because its not rewarding the player for any of their choices, its simply giving them an extra power turn based on nothing more than the dice roll. Plus, as said, its just not fun to spend two turns taking models off the table with no way to really respond save to hope the dice gods favour your dice rolls in reacting to attacks. It leaves one player unable to make almost any reaction, any response or change whilst the other gets to have fun playing out their best tactics. 

 

[eekamouse]

This is quite the necro. I gotta say since 2.0 has dropped and I’ve played more games since this was created, the double turn  has become one of my favorite aspect of AoS. 

AKA: I’ve learned not to rush everything into the middle and there’s not as much shooting as there was before 2.0.

[heywoah_twitch]

Despite the necro, Most games of AoS are decided by a priority roll either right then or as the main catalyst event that leads to a win or loss later - a fact that I find very unfortunate, and my main complaint. I think such a crazy swingy mechanic belongs in Open and Narrative play, while Matched should be more about coming up with and following through on a more concrete strategy. There's plenty of granular randomness as it is.

[Dead Scribe]

18 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

Despite the necro, Most games of AoS are decided by a priority roll either right then or as the main catalyst event that leads to a win or loss later - a fact that I find very unfortunate, and my main complaint. I think such a crazy swingy mechanic belongs in Open and Narrative play, while Matched should be more about coming up with and following through on a more concrete strategy. There's plenty of granular randomness as it is.

I would concur strongly with this statement.

[Vextol]

To the necro - if someone legitimatly wanted to talk about double turns again I fear a slew of "Use the search!" and "it's been done to death!"  so to that end, I'm pro res 😂

I was in camp anti-double turn and am still in camp anti-current double turn.  However, my general opinion has changed.  I'm not against the mechanic. I just think there needs to be a more measurable benefit of not taking it.

Endless spells tried to address it a little and some scenarios help but it's still not quite enough.  I think you need something even more measurable.  If you win initiative AND go second, you get another point toward your score.  Woah!! Settle down!! I know, maybe not a great option, but something.  Something that makes going second sexy even if you have the potential of a double turn.  

I've played a lot of games of Sigmar and have never seen someone pass up an early double turn.  Ever.   Not once.  I know there will be examples, but you'd be hard pressed to say it's common.  That's my biggest problem with the double turn.  Not its existence, but it's overuse. It needs a tweak like all things do occasionally, not to be removed completely. 

[Overread]

The problem is in a game where each player takes a full turn of actions before the other player, there really is very little reason to not want to have two turns of action. There might be some very specific niche situations where you won't want it; but by and large you want to have a double turn. It gives you a full extra turn of doing stuff with your opponent left unable to react and adapt to your actions; they can only respond to them and remove their models from the table. 

I just find it hard to work out how you can tweak it so that players have to make a choice; without that choice being a near automatic "yes" or "no" in each instance. 

[eekamouse]

2 minutes ago, Overread said:

I just find it hard to work out how you can tweak it so that players have to make a choice; without that choice being a near automatic "yes" or "no" in each instance. 

Having your double turn not be that effective/efficient/timely... and then getting double turned back.

I watched a game on the live stream from Adepticon last weekend where the two players cat & moused the first two rounds. It was lovely.

Edited April 1, 2019 by eekamouse

[Vextol]

9 minutes ago, Overread said:

I just find it hard to work out how you can tweak it so that players have to make a choice; without that choice being a near automatic "yes" or "no" in each instance. 

Well, in that case at least we're not DIFFERENT than we are now. 😬

But in seriousness, it's dangerous to dismiss the concept of something outright.  Shooting was rough before.  If the thought was "What could you possibly do to tame it?  Best not try."  it could still be crazy dominant. 

I know some people don't think there's a problem with the double turn.  Some people didn't think there was a problem with shooting either.  Either way, it's a devisive aspect of the game that should be looked at to some degree. 

Malign portents had some nice bits to help counter the double turn.  I'd be good with a "Buff Table" where you could choose an army wide buff for going second. Take cover! - 1 to hit for shooting.  Shield up! Universal reroll 1s to save.   Again, not a rules writer here but there are options.  Even if you had to roll for it so it wasn't guaranteed.  You say "I'm taking the gamble.  Might be really good or totally useless."

It is a dice game after all. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Vextol

[heywoah_twitch]

3 minutes ago, eekamouse said:

Having your double turn not be that effective/efficient/timely... and then getting double turned back.

If you get a double turn, you are further rewarded next battle round by winning ties.

Edited April 1, 2019 by heywoah_twitch

[JPjr]

Spitballing ideas here but since it can be such an important factor in a game it feels like  rather than binning it maybe it’s worth keeping it but giving players more agency so it becomes a tactical decision rather than just blind luck.

Maybe something as simple as both players start with a pool of, let’s say, 10 dice and they can choose how many dice they want to use up each turn when rolling. That way you can attempt to force the issue on certain turns.

Or similar but with a pool of points (or even use Command Points) to modify the results.

On a related note I thought an interesting, thematic Allegiance Ability for Tzeentch would be that you can secretly (obviously with someone checking in comp play) roll all your priority dice before the game and then rearrange them into whatever order you want before the game starts, so you have some idea how things might shake up and can plan appropriately.

[Vextol]

18 minutes ago, JPjr said:

Spitballing ideas here but since it can be such an important factor in a game it feels like  rather than binning it maybe it’s worth keeping it but giving players more agency so it becomes a tactical decision rather than just blind luck.

Maybe something as simple as both players start with a pool of, let’s say, 10 dice and they can choose how many dice they want to use up each turn when rolling. That way you can attempt to force the issue on certain turns.

Yeah!  Different than I was thinking but still a good idea.  

There's definitely a ton of really cool potential ideas that would help people feel better about the double turn but not get rid of it. 

Edit: I thought about it and I like your dice idea so much I'm going to implement it immediately.  I don't know why they didn't always do that!

Edited April 1, 2019 by Vextol